Comments on: Dimmock v Secretary of Statehttp://climateaudit.org/2007/10/16/dimmock-v-secretary-of-state/
by Steve McIntyreTue, 31 Mar 2015 20:47:29 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.com/By: EPhttp://climateaudit.org/2007/10/16/dimmock-v-secretary-of-state/#comment-112000
Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:52:27 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2212#comment-112000Dimmock was a member of the New Party, a centre-right group, long before Gore brought out his film. He’s also a school governor, so although he may not be divulging where the funds are coming from exactly, it’s more likely that he found the problem, contacted his party and contacts therein helped him. There’s little proof that this was a case of some oil company seeking a stooge to take the government to court.
]]>By: Alan Cheethamhttp://climateaudit.org/2007/10/16/dimmock-v-secretary-of-state/#comment-111999
Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:31:01 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2212#comment-111999Re: 139 – Glacier Bay:
You are right – the glacier has been receding since the LIA. See the glacier section in the Alaska regional summary
]]>By: charles messinahttp://climateaudit.org/2007/10/16/dimmock-v-secretary-of-state/#comment-111998
Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:00:30 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2212#comment-111998On a recent tour of Alaska I made observations concerning glacial retreat that
seem at odds with man made global warming theory. As someone relatively new to
study of the topic my observations are posted here in the hope they will receive
critique from those with subject matter understanding far deeper than mine.

I am requesting comment on this proposition….the retreat of the Grand Pacific
Glacier–located to the north of Glacier Bay–represents glacial retreat
opposite of what anthropogenic warming requires for the theory to be valid and
thus for this glacier and this glacier only the theory is contradicted by direct
physical evidence.

Here are the baseline facts upon which the proposition is based:

> The Grand Pacific Glacier [hereafter the GP] is thought to have commenced
retreating 300 years ago. At that time the length is thought to have been at
least 100 miles, extending into the Pacific Ocean.

> At its peak the GP was 4000 feet in hight proven by flat mountains below that
elevation and striations on mountains exceeding that hight.

> Glacier Bay [hereafter GB]–a fjord created by the GP–measures 67 miles at
present.

These are the observations central to the proposition:

> GB was discover in 1794 by Capt. Vancouver who measured its length at 5 miles
thus establishing that on that date 62 miles of GB was still ice covered by the
GP to an elevation of under 4000 feet.. [and not likely affected by ocean
current]

> In 1879 while studying the area’s geology John Muir measured and recorded the
length of GB at 40 miles, thus establishing additional retreat by the GPof 35
miles over a period of 95 years, representing annual average recession
of approximately 1/3 mile per year.

> Given the present length of GB, 67 miles, further retreat of 27 miles has
occurred in the past 128 years since Muir measured the length at 40 miles,
representing average annual recession of approximately 1/5 mile per year.

> Taken as a whole blended research on the present rate of glacial retreat in
North America are in a range of 10 -120 feet per year.

Conclusion:

The retreat of the GP is decelerating [and doing so at significantly lower
volumes of ice measured by depth of ice] in contradiction of both anthropogenic
theory and predicted rate of glacial retreat.Thus, anthropogenic warming theory
does not explain behavior of the GP and calls into question the theory itself.

Stewart Dimmock, who brought this case, appears to have been funded by the very same fossil fuel interests who have sought to undermine the scientific consensus behind global warming in the past. The Observer has reported that he was funded by mining interests as well as the Scientific Alliance, an industry-backed non-profit with links to other groups in the U.S. like the U.S. based George C. Marshall Institute which has received funding from Exxon. This was also reported in the U.S. Our experience is that when the vested interests do not like the message, they tend to use diversionary tactics to create uncertainty or to fund individuals and groups to shoot the messenger. In this instance, it appears they are trying to do both. According to these reports, Mr. Dimmock will still not fully reveal who funded the case.

Which raises the question: does Mr. Gore imply that British judge, who made actual decision on the case, is also on payroll of Exxon-Mobil, or he is just plain dumb?

]]>By: kaser’s pagehttp://climateaudit.org/2007/10/16/dimmock-v-secretary-of-state/#comment-111995
Mon, 22 Oct 2007 04:46:37 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2212#comment-111995[…] such as Chad in Africa, Eyre in Australia and Bonneville in the western US were formed. … http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2212#comment-150011 Comments for Climate Audit http://www.climateaudit.org No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed […]
]]>By: Natehttp://climateaudit.org/2007/10/16/dimmock-v-secretary-of-state/#comment-111994
Mon, 22 Oct 2007 03:15:33 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2212#comment-111994Is there any chance that when they show kids this “spooky” graph with two time series that seem to correlate fairly well, they give the kids a brief lesson in econometrics so they can understand that correlations does not prove causation?
Or is the goal to keep the subjects stupid and ignorant, because it makes them more apt to obey everything the master says?
]]>By: Paul G Mhttp://climateaudit.org/2007/10/16/dimmock-v-secretary-of-state/#comment-111993
Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:01:38 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2212#comment-111993Venting

Strange. One moment it was there and then it was gone. Was it venting?